Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177

www.elsevier.com/locate/disc

Chromaticity of a family of K4-homeomorphs 

Yan-ling Peng∗ , Ru-Ying Liu
Department of Mathematics, Qinghai Normal University, President’s Oce, 810008 Xining,
Qinghai, China

Received 7 January 2000; received in revised form 21 May 2001; accepted 4 September 2001

Abstract

We discuss the chromaticity of one family of K4 -homeomorphs which has exactly 2 adjacent
paths of length 1, and give su2cient and necessary condition for the graphs in the family to be
chromatically unique.

c 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Chromatic polynomial; K4 -homeomorph; Chromatic uniqueness

1. Introduction

In this paper, we consider graphs which are simple. For such a graph G, let P(G; )
denote the chromatic polynomial of G. Two graphs G and H are chromatically equiv-
alent, denoted by G ∼ H , if P(G; )= P(H ; ). A graph G is chromatically unique
if for any graph H such that H ∼ G, we have H ∼ = G, i.e., H is isomorphic to G.
A K4 -homeomorph is a subdivision of the complete graph K4 . Such a homeomorph
is denoted by K4 (; ; ;
; ; ) if the six edges of K4 are replaced by the six paths of
length ; ; ;
; ; , respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. Each of these six paths is called
a ∗-path.
So far, the study of the chromaticity of K4 -homeomorphs with at least 3 ∗-paths
of length 1 has been ful=led (see [2,6,3]). In this paper, we study the chromaticity
of K4 -homeomorphs K4 (; 1; 1;
; ; ) (as Fig. 2(a)) with 2 ∗-path of length 1 are
adjacent.

 Project Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pengyanling@263.net (Y.-l. Peng).

0012-365X/02/$ - see front matter  c 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 2 - 3 6 5 X ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 6 8 - 6
162 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

2. Auxiliary results

In this section, we cite some known results used in the sequel.

Proposition 1. Let G ∼ H . Then

(1) |V (G)|=|V (H )|, |E(G)|= |E(H )| (see [3]);

(2) If G is a K4 -homeomorph, then H is a K4 -homeomorph as well (see [1]);
(3) If G and H are homeomorphic to K4 , then both the minimum values of parameters
and the number of parameters equal to this minimum value of the graphs G and
H coincide (see [5]).
 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177 163

Proposition 2 (Li [4]). Suppose that G=K4 (; ; ;

; ; ) and H =K4 (
; 
;
;

; 
; 
)
are chromatically equivalent homeomorphs such that two multisets (; ; ;
; ; ) and
(
; 
;
;

; 
; 
) are the same, then H is isomorphic to G.

Proposition 3 (Guo and Whitehead Jr. [2] and Xu [6]). K4 (1; ; ; 1; ; ) (see Fig.
2(b)) is not chromatically unique if and only if it is K4 (1; b + 2; b; 1; 2; 2) or K4 (1; a +
1; a + 3; 1; 2; a) or K4 (1; a + 2; b; 1; 2; a), where a¿2, b¿1, and

K4 (1; b + 2; b; 1; 2; 2) ∼ K4 (3; 1; 1; 2; b; b + 1);

K4 (1; a + 1; a + 3; 1; 2; a) ∼ K4 (a + 1; 1; 1; a; 3; a + 2);

K4 (1; a + 2; b; 1; 2; a) ∼ K4 (a + 1; 1; 1; b; 3; a):

3. Main results

Lemma. If G ∼
= K4 (; 1; 1;
; ; ) and H ∼
= K4 (
; 1; 1;

; 
; 
), then we have
(1) P(G) = (−1) n+1 [r=(r − 1)2 ][−r n+1 − r 2 + r + 2 + Q(G)], where

Q(G) = −r  − r
− r  − r  − r +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +

+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++

r = 1 − , n is the number of vertices of G.

(2) If P(G)= P(H ), then Q(G)= Q(H ).

Proof. (1) Let r =1 − . From [5], we have the chromatic polynomial of K4 -homeo-
morph K4 (; ; ;
; ; ) as follows:

P(K4 (; ; ;
; ; )) = (−1) n+1 [r=(r − 1)2 ][(r 2 + 3r + 2)

− (r + 1)(r  + r  + r + r
+ r  + r  )

+ (r +
+ r + + r + + r ++

+ r +
+ + r + + + r
++ − r n+1 )]:

Then

P(G) = P(K4 (; 1; 1;

; ; ))

= (−1) n+1 [r=(r − 1)2 ][(r 2 + 3r + 2) − (r + 1)(r  + r

+ r  + r  + 2r)

+ (r +1 + r +1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ − r n+1 )]
164 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177

= (−1) n+1 [r=(r − 1)2 ](−r n+1 − r 2 + r + 2 − r  − r

− r  − r  − r +1

− r
+1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ )

= (−1) n+1 [r=(r − 1)2 ](−r n+1 − r 2 + r + 2 + Q(G))

where

Q(G) = −r  − r
− r  − r  − r +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +

+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ :

Proof. (2) If P(G)= P(H ), then it is easy to see that Q(G) = Q(H ).

Theorem. K4 -homeomorphs K4 (; 1; 1;

; ; ) (min{;
; ; }¿2) is not chromatically
unique if and only if it is K4 (a; 1; 1; a + b + 1; b; b + 1), K4 (a; 1; 1; b; b + 2; a + b), K4 (a +
1; 1; 1; a+3; 2; a), K4 (a+2; 1; 1; a; 2; a+2), K4 (3; 1; 1; 2; b; b+1), K4 (a+1; 1; 1; a; 3; a+2)
or K4 (a + 1; 1; 1; b; 3; a), where a¿2, b¿2.

Proof. Let G ∼ = K4 (; 1; 1;

; ; ) and min{;
; ; }¿2 (see Fig. 2(a)). If there is a
graph H such that P(H )= P(G), then from Proposition 1, we know that H is a
K4 -homeomorph K4 (
; 
;
;

; 
; 
) and two of 
; 
;
;

; 
; 
must be 1. We can
assume that 
=

=1 or 
=
= 1. We now solve the equation P(G) = P(H ) to get
all solutions.
Case A: If 
=

= 1, then H ∼ = K4 (1; 
;
; 1; 
; 
). From Proposition 3, we know
the solutions of the equation P(G)= P(H ) are

K4 (3; 1; 1; 2; b; b + 1) ∼ K4 (1; b + 2; b; 1; 2; 2);

K4 (a + 1; 1; 1; a; 3; a + 2) ∼ K4 (1; a + 1; a + 3; 1; 2; a);

K4 (a + 1; 1; 1; b; 3; a) ∼ K4 (1; a + 2; b; 1; 2; a):

Case B: If 
=
= 1, then H ∼
= K4 (
; 1; 1;

; 
; 
). We solve the equation Q(G) =
Q(H ). From lemma, we have

Q(G) = −r  − r
− r  − r  − r +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +

+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;










Q(H ) = −r  − r
− r  − r  − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +

+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :

We know that  +
+  +  =
+

+ 
+ 
(from Proposition 1) and we can
assume 6, 
6
, min{
;

; 
; 
}¿2. We denote the lowest remaining power by
l.r.p. and the highest remaining power by h.r.p.
 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177 165

Case 1: If min{;
; ; }=  and min{
;

; 
; 
} = 
, then the lowest power in
Q(G) is  and the lowest power in Q(H ) is 
. Therefore  =
. We obtain the
following after simpli=cation:

Q(G): − r
− r  − r  − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 ;












Q(H ): − r
− r  − r  − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 :

By considering the h.r.p. in Q(G) and the h.r.p. in Q(H ), we have ++1 = 
+
+1

or  +
=
+

or  +
=
+ 
+ 1 or  +  + 1 =
+

.


Case 1.1: If ++1 = 
+
+1, then  =
. After canceling −r  in Q(G) with −r 
in Q(H ), we have the l.r.p. in Q(G) is
or  and the l.r.p. in Q(H ) is

or 
. Therefore

= 
or  =

or
=

or  =
. From  = 
,  = 
and  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
,
we know that the two multisets (; 1; 1;
; ; ) and (
; 1; 1;

; 
; 
) are the same. Since
G ∼ H , from Proposition 2, we have G is isomorphic to H .
Case 1.2: If  +
=
+

, then we can handle this case in the same fashion as
case 1.1, so we get G ∼= H.
Case 1.3: If  +
= 
+ 
+ 1, then
= 
+ 1 (since  =
) and  +  + 1 = 
+


(since  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
). After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r
− r  − r  − r
+1 + r
+2 + r ++1 + r ++1 ;










Q(H ): − r
− r  − r  − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 :

Since
=
+ 1 (which implies
¿
) and 
6
, we have the l.r.p. in Q(G) is 
and the l.r.p. in Q(H ) is 
or

. Then,  = 
or  =

. If  =
, then

=  + 1 since


 +  + 1= 
+

. After canceling −r  in Q(G) with −r  in Q(H ), we have the l.r.p.
in Q(G) is  and the l.r.p. in Q(H ) is  . Therefore  = 
which yields
=

. So

G∼= H . If  =

, then 
= + 1 since  +  + 1 = 
+

. After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r
− r  − r
+1 + r
+2 + r ++1 + r ++1 ;









Q(H ): − r  − r  − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 :

Since  =

and 
= + 1 and 6, we have

+ 16
6
. By
= 
+ 1, we know
that no terms in Q(H ) is equal to −r
. So the term −r
and the term −r
+1 must be
cancelled by the term +r ++1 and by the term +r ++1 , respectively, therefore

= +  + 1;
+ 1=  +  + 1:


Consider −r  in Q(G) (noting 
= + 1 and

+ 16
6
). We have −r  = − r
+1 .
So 
=

+ 2. Let  = a,  = b, we obtain the solution (noting  = 
,  =

, 
=

+ 2,

= 
+ 1, =

+ 1,
= +  + 1 and
+ 1 =  +  + 1) where G is isomorphic to
K4 (a; 1; 1; a + b + 1; b; b + 1) and H is isomorphic to K4 (a; 1; 1; b; b + 2; a + b).
Case 1.4: If  +  + 1= 
+

, then the results are similar to case 1.3.
Case 2: If min{;
; ; }=  and min{
;

; 
; 
} =

, then  =

. Since the case
of min{;
; ; } = and min{
;

; 
; 
} = 
has been discussed in case 1, we can
166 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177

suppose

= 
in case 2.

Q(G) = −r  − r
− r  − r  − r +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +

+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;










Q(H ) = −r  − r
− r  − r  − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +

+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :
By considering the highest power in Q(G) and the highest power in Q(H ), we have

++= 
+
+1 or
++=

+
+
. If
++ =
+
+1, then +1 = 
+


since  +
+  +  =
+

+ 
+ 
. This is a contradiction since  =

and 
¿2.
If
+  +  =

+ 
+ 
, then  = 
. since  =

, we have 
=

which contradicts

= 
.
Case 3: If min{;
; ; }=  and min{
;

; 
; 
} = 
, then  = 
. Since the case
of min{;
; ; } = and min{
;

; 
; 
} = 
has been discussed in case 1, we can
suppose 
= 
in case 3.

Q(G) = −r  − r
− r  − r  − r +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +

+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;










Q(H ) = −r  − r
− r  − r  − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +

+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :
By considering the highest power in Q(G) and the highest power in Q(H ), we have

+  + = 
+

or
+  +  =
+ 
+ 1 or
+  +  =

+ 
+ 
. If
+  +  =
+

,
then  = 
+ 
since  +
+  + = 
+

+ 
+ 
. This is a contradiction since  =
.
If
+  +  =
+ 
+ 1, then  + 1 =
+

since  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
.
This is a contradiction since  =
and

¿2. If
+  +  =

+ 
+ 
, then  =
.
Since  = 
, we have 
=
which contradicts 
= 
.
Case 4: If min{;
; ; }=
and min{
;

; 
; 
} =

, then
=

. After simplifying
Q(G) and Q(H ), we have

Q(G): − r  − r  − r  − r +1 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;














Q(H ): − r  − r  − r  − r  +1 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :
By considering the l.r.p. in Q(G) and the l.r.p. in Q(H ), we have  = 
or  = 
or
 = 
or  = 
.
Case 4.1: If  =
, then  +  =
+ 
since  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
. After
simplifying Q(G) and Q(H ), we have the l.r.p. in Q(G) is  and the l.r.p. in Q(H ) is

. Then  = 
. Therefore, = 
which implies that G is isomorphic to H .
Case 4.2: If  = 
, then  +  =
+ 
since  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
. After


canceling −r  in Q(G) with −r  in Q(H ), we have the l.r.p. in Q(G) is min{; }
and the l.r.p. in Q(H ) is min{
; 
}. Therefore  = 
or  =
or  = 
or  = 
. From
 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177 167

=

,  = 
and  +  =
+ 
, we know that the two multisets (; 1; 1;
; ; ) and
(
; 1; 1;

; 
; 
) are the same. Since G ∼ H , by Proposition 2, we have G is isomorphic
to H .
Case 4.3: If  =
which implies that 6, then we obtain the following after
simpli=cation:

Q(G): −r  − r  − r +1 + r +
+ r ++1

+r ++1 + r
++ ;








Q(H ): −r  − r  − r  +1 + r  +
+ r  + +1






+r  + +1 + r
+ + :
By considering the h.r.p. in Q(G) and the h.r.p. in Q(H ), we have the h.r.p. in Q(G) is

+  +  (since 6) and the h.r.p. in Q(H ) is 
+ 
+ 1 (since min{
;

; 
; 
} =

)
or

+
+
. Then
++ =
+
+1 or
++ =

+
+
. If
++ = 
+
+1,
then  + 1 = 
+

since  +
+  + = 
+

+ 
+ 
. This is a contradiction since
 =
and

¿2. If
+  +  =

+ 
+ 
, then  =
. Since  = 
, we have 
= 
.
After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r  − r  + r ++1 + r ++1 ;







Q(H ): − r  − r  + r  + +1 + r  + +1 :
By considering the l.r.p. in Q(G) and the l.r.p. in Q(H ), we have  =
. Since  = 

and
=

and  +
+  + = 
+

+ 
+ 
, we have  = 
which implies that G is
isomorphic to H .
Case 4.4: If  =
, then we can handle this case in the same fashion as Case 4.3.
The results are similar to case 4.3.
Case 5: If min{;
; ; } = and min{
;

; 
; 
} = 
, then  =
. After simplifying
Q(G) and Q(H ), we have

Q(G): −r  − r
− r  − r +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1

+r ++1 + r
++ ;









Q(H ): − r  − r
− r  − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +

+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :
By considering the l.r.p. in Q(G) and the l.r.p. in Q(H ), we have min{;
; } = min{
;

; 
}. There are six cases to consider.

Case 5.1: If min{;
; }=  and min{
;

; 
} = 
, then  = 
. After simpli=cation,
we have the l.r.p. in Q(G) is min{
; } and the l.r.p. in Q(H ) is min{

; 
}. Then
min{
; }= min{

; 
}. From  =
,  =
and  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
, we know
that the two multisets (; 1; 1;
; ; ) and (
; 1; 1;

; 
; 
) are the same. Since G∼H ,
from Proposition 2, we have G is isomorphic to H .
168 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177

Case 5.2: If min{;

; } = and min{
;

; 
} =

, then  =

. From  =
and
 +
+  +  =
+

+ 
+ 
, we have

+ = 
+ 
:
Since min{;
; }=  and min{
;

; 
} =

, we know that the h.r.p. in Q(G) is
+
 +  and the h.r.p. in Q(H ) is 
+ 
+ 1 or

+ 
+ 
. Therefore
+  +  = 
+ 
+ 1
or
+  + =

+ 
+ 
. If
+  + = 
+ 
+ 1, then  = 1 since
+  = 
+ 
.
This is a contradiction since ¿2. If
+  +  =

+ 
+ 
, then  = 
. Thus, we can
prove G ∼= H in the same fashion as case 5.1.
Case 5.3: If min{;
; } = and min{
;

; 
} = 
, then  = 
. Since  = 
and
 +
+  +  =
+

+ 
+ 
, we have

+ = 
+

:
By considering the h.r.p. in Q(G) and the h.r.p. in Q(H ), we have
+  +  =
+


or
+  +  =
+ 
+ 1 or
+  +  =

+ 
+ 
. If
+  +  =
+

, from

+  = 
+

, we have  = 0 which contradicts ¿2. If
+  +  =
+ 
+ 1, from
+
++ =
+

+
+
, we have +1 =

+
. Since  = 
, we have 
+1 =

+

which implies

¡
since 
¿2. This is a contradiction since min{
;

; 
} = 
. If

+  +  =

+ 
+ 
, then  =
. Thus, we can prove G ∼ = H in the same fashion as
case 5.1.
Case 5.4: If min{;
; }=
and min{
;

; 
} =

, then
=

. After canceling −r

in Q(G) with −r
in Q(H ), and canceling −r
+1 in Q(G) with −r
+1 in Q(H ),
we have the l.r.p. in Q(G) is min{; } and the l.r.p. in Q(H ) is min{
; 
}. Then,
min{; }= min{
; 
}. From  = 
and
=

and  +
+  +  =
+

+ 
+ 
, we
know that the two multisets (; 1; 1;
; ; ) and (
; 1; 1;

; 
; 
) are the same. Since
G∼H , from Proposition 2, we have G is isomorphic to H .
Case 5.5: If min{;
; } = and min{
;

; 
} = 
, then  = 
. Thus we can prove
G∼= H in the same fashion as case 5.4.
Case 5.6: If min{;
; } =
and min{
;

; 
} = 
, then
= 
. From  = 
and
 +
+  +  =
+

+ 
+ 
, we have
 + = 
+

: (1)
After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): −r  − r  − r +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1

+r ++1 + r
++ ;








Q(H ): −r  − r
− r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +

+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :
By considering the l.r.p. in Q(G) and the l.r.p. in Q(H ), we have min{; ;
+1}
= min{
;

}. If min{; }= min{
;

}, from (1) and
= 
and  =
, we know that
the two multisets (; 1; 1;
; ; ) and (
; 1; 1;

; 
; 
) are the same. Since G ∼ H , from
 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177 169

Proposition 2, we have G is isomorphic to H . If min{
;

} =
+ 1. There are two
cases to consider.


Case 5.6.1: If

6
, then

=
+ 1. Consider r
+2 in Q(G) and −r
+1 in Q(H ). It


is due to

6
that −r
+1 can cancel none of the positive terms in Q(H ). Thus, no
term in Q(H ) is equal to r
+2 . Therefore,
+ 2 must equal one of ; ;  + 1 and

+ 1
must equal one of ; ;  + 1. So
+ 2=

+ 1 =  =  or
+ 2 =

+ 1 =  + 1 =. If

+ 2=

+ 1=  = (2)


then we obtain the following after canceling −r  with r
+2 , canceling −r  with −r
+1 ,


and canceling −r
+1 with −r
:

Q(G): − r +1 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;













Q(H ): − r  − r  +1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :

Since  =

+ 1 (from (2)) and  +  = 
+

(from (1)), we have 
=  + 1. By
(2), we have 
+ 1 =

+ 3. This is a contradiction since nothing in Q(H ) can cancel


−r  +1 . If

+ 2=

+ 1=  + 1=  (3)

then we obtain the following after canceling −r +1 with r

+2 , canceling −r  with



−r
+1 , and canceling −r
+1 with −r
:

Q(G): − r  + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;













Q(H ): − r  − r  +1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :

Since =

+ 1 (from (3)), by (1), we have 
=  + 1. This is a contradiction since no
term in Q(H ) is equal to −r  and nothing in Q(G) can cancel −r  (noting  =
+ 1
(from (3))).


Case 5.6.2: If 
6

, then 
=
+ 1. Consider r
+2 in Q(G) and −r  +1 in Q(H ).


It is due to 
6

that −r  +1 can cancel none of the positive terms in Q(H ). Thus,
no term in Q(H ) is equal to r
+2 . Therefore,
+ 2 must equal one of ; ;  + 1 and

+ 1 must equal one of ; ;  + 1. So
+ 2 = 
+ 1 =  + 1 = or
+ 2 =
+ 1 =  = .
If
+ 2= 
+ 1=  + 1= , then we obtain the following after canceling −r  with



r , canceling −r +1 with −r  +1 , and canceling −r
+1 with −r  :

+2

Q(G): − r  + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;













Q(H ): − r
− r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :

Since 
+ 1 =, by (1), we have

= + 1. This is a contradiction since no term in
Q(H ) is equal to −r  and nothing in Q(G) can cancel −r  (noting  =
+ 1).
170 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177

If
+ 2= 
+ 1 = = , then we obtain the following after canceling −r  with r
+2 ,



canceling −r  with −r  +1 , and canceling −r
+1 with −r  :

Q(G): − r +1 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;













Q(H ): − r
− r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :


Since 
+ 1 =, from (1), we have

=  + 1. Consider −r
+1 in Q(H ). We have

+1 = 
+
+1 or

+1 =
+
+1. If

+1 = 
+
+1, from

= +1 = 
+2, we
have 
= 2. So far, we have had
= 
,
+ 2 = 
+ 1 =  = ,

=  + 1,  =
= 2. Let

= a, we obtain the solution where G is isomorphic to k 4 (a + 2; 1; 1; a; 2; a + 2) and H

is isomorphic to K4 (a + 1; 1; 1; a + 3; 2; a). If

+ 1 = 
+ 
+ 1, from

=  + 1 = 
+ 2,
we have 
= 2. From 
6
and 
¿2, we have 
= 2. Since
= 
,
+ 2 = 
+1
=  = ,

= + 1,  =
, we have
=2,  = 4,  = 4, 
= 3,

= 5,  =
= 2. Then we
obtain the solution where G is isomorphic to k 4 (4; 1; 1; 2; 2; 4) and H is isomorphic to
K4 (3; 1; 1; 5; 2; 2).
Case 6: If min{;
; ; }=
and min{
;

; 
; 
} = 
, then

=
: (4)
After simplifying Q(G) and Q(H ), we have

Q(G): −r  − r  − r  − r +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;









Q(H ): −r  − r
− r  − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +

+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :
Since the case of min{;
; ; } = and min{
;

; 
; 
} = 
has been discussed in
case 3, we can suppose
=  in case 6. Thus
¡. Since the case of min{;
; ; } = 
and min{
;

; 
; 
} =
has been discussed in case 5, we can suppose
=  in case 6.
Thus

¡: (5)




Therefore, the l.r.p. in Q(G) is
+ 1 and the l.r.p. in Q(H ) is  or
or  . So, we
have
+ 1=
or
+ 1=

or
+ 1= 
. There are three cases to consider.
Case 6.1: If
+ 1 =
, then the h.r.p. in Q(G) is  +  + 1 or
+  +  and the h.r.p.
in Q(H ) is

+ 
+ 
(since min{
;

; 
} = 
). Therefore,  +  + 1 =

+ 
+ 
or

+  + =

+ 
+ 
. If  +  + 1=

+ 
+ 
, from  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
,
we have  +
= 
+ 1. Since
+ 1 =
, we have  = 2 which contradicts ¿
¿2. If

+  +  =

+ 
+ 
, then  = 
. After canceling −r +1 with −r  +1 , canceling −r 





with −r  , and canceling −r
++ with −r
+ + , we have

Q(G): − r  − r  − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 ;











Q(H ): − r
− r  − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 :
Since
¡ (from (5)) and 6, we have the h.r.p. in Q(G) is  +  + 1. The h.r.p.
in Q(H ) is 
+

or 
+ 
+ 1 (noting 
6
). Therefore,  +  + 1 =
+

or
 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177 171

 ++1=
+
+1. If  ++1=
+

, by  =
, we have

= +1. Thus, no terms






in Q(G) are equal to −r
and −r
+1 . Then −r
must be cancelled by r  + +1 and




−r
+1 must be cancelled by r  + +1 . Since nothing in Q(G) can cancel −r
+1 (noting

¡ and 6), we have −r
+1 = − r  . Since no terms in Q(H ) are equal to −r  and
−r  , −r  must be canceled by r
+2 and −r  must be canceled by r +
. So far, we have
had  = 
,

=
+ 
+ 1 and

+ 1= 
+ 
+ 1 (which implies 
= 
+ 1),
+ 1 =
,
 =
+ 2,  = +
. Let  =a,
=b. We obtain the solution where G is isomorphic
to K4 (a; 1; 1; b; b + 2; a + b) and H is isomorphic to K4 (a; 1; 1; a + b + 1; b; b + 1). If
 +  + 1= 
+ 
+ 1, then = 
since  = 
. From  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 

and
=
(from (4)), we have

=. After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r
+1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 ;







Q(H ): − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 :

This is a contradiction since no term in Q(H ) is equal to −r

+1 (by noting
¡ =

).
Case 6.2: If
+ 1 =

, then we can suppose

= 
in case 6.2 since the case of

+ 1= 
has been discussed in case 6.1. Thus

¡
: (6)


After canceling −r
+1 with −r
, we have

Q(G): −r  − r  − r  − r +1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;










Q(H ): − r  − r  − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1






+ r  + +1 + r
+ + :



Consider r
+2 in Q(G) and −r
+1 in Q(H ). It is due to (6) that −r
+1 can cancel
none of the positive terms in Q(H ). Thus, no terms in Q(H ) is equal to r
+2 . Therefore,


−r
+1 and r
+2 must equal one of −r  , −r  , −r  , −r +1 . So,

+ 1 =
+ 2 =  = 
or

+ 1=
+ 2 = = or

+ 1 =
+ 2 =  + 1 =  or

+ 1 =
+ 2 =  + 1 =  or

+ 1=
+ 2 =  =. Without loss of generality, only the following three cases need
to be considered.


Case 6.2.1: If

+ 1=
+ 2=, we consider r
+2 in Q(H ) and −r +1 in Q(G). It
is due to  =
+ 2 that −r +1 can cancel none of the positive terms in Q(G). Thus,


no terms in Q(G) is equal to r
+2 . Therefore,  + 1 =

+ 2 = 
= 
or  + 1 =

+2
= 
+ 1= 
. If

 + 1=

+ 2= 
=
(7)


then we obtain the following after canceling −r  with r
+2 , canceling −r +1 with −r  ,



and canceling −r  with r
+2 :

Q(G): − r  − r  + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;












Q(H ): − r  +1 − r
+1 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :
172 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177

By considering the l.r.p. in Q(G) and the l.r.p. in Q(H ), we have  =

+ 1. Since
 +
+  +  =
+

+ 
+ 
and
= 
(from (4)) and 
=  + 1 (from (7)),
we have  =
. Therefore = 
(noting (7)). This is a contradiction since no term



in Q(G) is equal to −r  +1 and nothing in Q(H ) can cancel −r  +1 (noting (7)). If
 + 1=

+ 2= 
+ 1= 
, then we obtain the following after canceling −r  with r
+2 ,




canceling −r +1 with −r  +1 , canceling −r  with r
+2 , and canceling −r
++ with




−r
+ +

Q(G): − r  − r  + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 ;









Q(H ): − r  − r
+1 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 :

Consider r +
in Q(G). It is due to  = 
, and

=
+ 1 and
= 
(from (4)) that
no term in Q(H ) is equal to r +
. This is a contradiction since nothing in Q(G) can



cancel r +
(by noting −r  = − r
+1 = − r  = − r  ).
Case 6.2.2: If
+ 1 =
+ 2 = + 1, then  =

. After canceling −r +1 with r
+2 ,

we have

Q(G): −r  − r  − r  + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;










Q(H ): −r  − r  − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1






+ r  + +1 + r
+ + :


It is due to

¡
(from (6)) and  =

that ¡
. Then −r  = − r  . Since
=

(from (4)) and  =
and  +
+  + = 
+

+ 
+ 
, we have

+ 
= + :



Consider −r
+1 in Q(H ). It is due to (6) that nothing in Q(H ) can cancel −r
+1 .



Therefore −r
+1 =−r  or −r
+1 =−r  . If

+1 = , then 
= +1 since

+
= +.



This is a contradiction since no terms in Q(G) are equal to −r  and −r  +1 (noting
¡
). If

+ 1 =, then 
= + 1 since

+ 
=  + . After canceling −r  with



−r  , canceling −r
+1 with −r  , we have

Q(G): − r  + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;













Q(H ): − r  − r  +1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :



This is a contradiction since no terms in Q(G) are equal to −r  and −r  +1 .
Case 6.2.3: If

+ 1=
+ 2=  = : (8)

Then, from (4) and

+ 1=  and  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
, we have

 +  + 1=
+ 
: (9)
 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177 173

After canceling −r  with r
+2 , canceling −r  with −r
+1 , we have

Q(G): −r  − r +1 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;









Q(H ): −r  − r  − r  +1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1






+ r  + +1 + r
+ + :



Consider −r  and −r +1 . One of −r  and −r +1 must equal −r  or −r  +1 .


If −r +1 = − r  , then  + 1 = 
. Therefore,  = 
since  +  + 1 = 
+ 
(from


(9)). By  =
+ 1 (from (8)), we have 
=

+ 1. After canceling −r  with −r +1 ,

we have

Q(G): − r  + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;













Q(H ): − r  +1 − r  + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :


Consider −r  in Q(H ). It is due to 
=

+ 1¡
+ 1 (noting (6)) that nothing in



Q(H ) can cancel −r  . So −r  = − r  . Then 
+ 1 =  + 2 =
+ 2 =

+ 3. This is a


contradiction since nothing in Q(H ) can cancel −r  +1 and no term in Q(G) is equal


to −r  +1 .


If −r +1 = − r  +1 , then  =
. Therefore,  + 1 =
since  +  + 1 =
+ 
. By


 =

+ 1 (from (8)), we have 
=

+ 2. After canceling −r  with −r  , canceling







−r +1 with −r  +1 , canceling −r  with r
+2 , and canceling −r
++ with −r
+ + ,
we have

Q(G): r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 ;







Q(H ): r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 :
This is a contradiction since no term in Q(H ) is equal to r +
(noting  = 
and
= 

(from (4)) and
+ 1=

(from (8))).



If −r  =−r  , by the same reason as in case −r +1 =−r  +1 , we have a contradiction.


If −r  = − r  +1 , then  =
+ 1. Therefore, 
=  + 2 since  +  + 1 = 
+ 
. By
=

+ 1 (from (8)), we have 
=

+ 3. After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r +1 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;













Q(H ): − r  − r  + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :




Consider −r  in Q(H ). It is due to  = 
+ 1 that −r  must be canceled by r
+2




or by r
+ + . If 
=

+ 2, by 
=

+ 3, we have 
+ 1 =
. So  = 
. This is a


contradiction since nothing in Q(H ) can cancel −r  and no term in Q(G) is equal to








−r . If  =
+  +  (which implies  ¡ =  − 1), then we obtain a contradiction



since nothing in Q(H ) can cancel −r  and no term in Q(G) is equal to −r  .




Case 6.3: If
+ 1=  , then we can suppose  =
in case 6.3 since the case of

+ 1=

has been discussed in Case 6.2. Thus 
¡

which implies

+ 16

: (10)
174 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177

After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): −r  − r  − r  − r +1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 + r
++ ;










Q(H ): −r  − r
− r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1






+ r  + +1 + r
+ + :

By considering the h.r.p. in Q(G) and the h.r.p. in Q(H ), we have the h.r.p. in Q(G)
is  +  + 1 (since min{;
; ; } =
) or
+  + , the h.r.p. in Q(H ) is 
+

(since

+ 16

) or

+ 
+ 
. There are four cases to consider.
Case 6.3.1: When  +  + 1¿
+  +  and 
+

¿

+ 
+ 
, we have

 +  + 1= 
+

: (11)

Since  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
and
+ 1 = 
, we have  =
+ 2. From (4), we
have  =
+ 2. After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r  − r  − r +1 + r +
+ r ++1 + r
++ ;













Q(H ): − r  − r
− r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :

By considering the l.r.p. in Q(G) and the l.r.p. in Q(H ), we have  =
or  =

or
 = 
or  =


If  = 
, then

= + 1 since  +  + 1 =
+

(from (11)). After canceling −r 





with −r  , and canceling −r +1 with −r  +1 , we know that the terms −r
and −r
+1
must be canceled by the terms in Q(H ). Then

= 
+
+1 and

+1 = 
+
+1. Let

= a and 
=b. Then we obtain the solution (noting  = 
,
= 
(from (4)),  = 
+2,

=
+ 1,

= + 1,

=
+ 
+ 1,

+ 1 = 
+ 
+ 1) where G is isomorphic to
K4 (a; 1; 1; b; b + 2; a + b) and H is isomorphic to K4 (a; 1; 1; a + b + 1; b; b + 1).


If  =

, then 
= + 1 since  +  + 1 = 
+

. After canceling −r  with −r
,



and canceling −r +1 with −r
+1 , we know that no term in Q(G) is equal to −r  or




−r  +1 . This is a contradiction since only one of −r  and −r  +1 can be canceled in
Q(H ).
If =
, then  + 1=

since  +  + 1 =
+

. After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r  + r +
+ r ++1 + r
++ ;











Q(H ): − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :



Consider −r
+1 in Q(H ). It is due to

=  + 1 that −r
+1 must be canceled by


the term in Q(H ). Then

+ 1 =
+ 
+ 1 or

+ 1 = 
+ 
+ 1. Thus −r  +1


+
+1
cannot be canceled by the term in Q(H ). So  + 1 = . Turn to the term r ,




we have r  + +1 =r +
(noting 
+ 1=  and
=
(from (4))). Therefore −r
+1



must be canceled by r  + +1 . From

= + 1 and  = 
+ 1, we have

= 
+ 2. By

+ 1=  +  + 1, we have 
= 2. From
+ 1 =
, we have
= 1 which contradicts

¿2.
 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177 175

If =

, then  + 1= 
since  +  + 1 =
+

. After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r  + r +
+ r ++1 + r
++ ;











Q(H ): − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :




Consider −r  +1 in Q(H ). It is due to 
=  + 1 that −r  +1 must be canceled by r
+2





or r
+ + . Thus we have a contradiction since no term in Q(G) is equal to −r
+1 .
Case 6.3.2: When  +  + 1¿
+  +  and 
+

6

+ 
+ 
, we have  +  + 1
=

+ 
+ 
. Then, by  +
+  + = 
+

+ 
+ 
, we have


+ 1=
+ : (12)

From  +  + 1¿
+  + ( + 1¿
+ ), we have

¿
: (13)

After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r  − r  − r  − r +1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r
++ ;












Q(H ): − r  − r
− r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 :

Since the h.r.p. in Q(G) is  +  + 1 (since min{;

; ; } =
) or
+  +  and the
h.r.p. in Q(H ) is 
+

(since 
+ 16

(from (10))), we have  +  + 1 = 
+


or
+  + = 
+

.
If ++1 =
+

, by +
++ =
+

+
+
, we have 
+
+1 =
+. Then,
from
+ 1 = 
and
=
(from (4)), we have  =
+ 2. Therefore, −r  is canceled
by r
+2 . After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r  − r  − r +1 + r +
+ r
++ ;










Q(H ): − r  − r
− r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  + +1 + r  + +1 :


Consider −r  in Q(H ). It is due to ¿
(from (13)) and 
+ 1 =
+  (which


implies 
¿) that −r  must be canceled by the term in Q(H ). Thus 
=

+ 2. This



is a contradiction since ¿
=

+ 2 and none of the terms −r
and −r
+1 can be
canceled by terms in Q(H ).
If
++= 
+

, then

=+1 since 
+1 =
+ (from (12)). After simpli=cation,
we have

Q(G): − r  − r  − r  − r +1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 ;










Q(H ): − r  − r
− r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  + +1 + r  + +1 :


If

6
, then we have a contradiction since no term in Q(G) is equal to −r
(by


noting ¿
and

= + 1). If

¿
. Consider −r  in Q(H ). It is due to ¿



(from (13)) and 
+ 1=
+  (which implies 
¿) that −r  = − r  . From

=  + 1,
176 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177

we have

=
+ 1. Thus −r
= − r  +1 . This is a contradiction since no pair of terms



in Q(G) are equal to −r
and −r  +1 (by noting 
= ¿).
Case 6.3.3: When  +  + 16
+  +  and 
+

6

+ 
+ 
, we have
+ +
=

+ 
+ 
. Then  =
since  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
. After simpli=cation,
we have

Q(G): − r  − r  + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 ;










Q(H ): − r
− r
+1 + r
+2 + r  +
+ r  + +1 + r  + +1 :

Since the h.r.p. in Q(G) is  +  + 1 (since min{;

; ; } =
and 6) and the h.r.p.
in Q(H ) is 
+

(since 
+ 16

(from (10))), we have  +  + 1 =
+

. Then

=  + 1 since  =
. Thus −r

and −r
+1 must be canceled by terms in Q(H ),
and −r  , −r  must be canceled by terms in Q(G). So, we have

= 
+ 
+ 1,

+ 1= 
+ 
+ 1,  =
+ 2 and =  +
. Let 
= a and 
= b. Then we obtain the
solution (noting  =
,
= 
(from (4)),  =
+ 2, 
=
+ 1,

=  + 1,

= 
+ 
+ 1,

+ 1= 
+ 
+ 1,  =  +
) where G is isomorphic to K4 (a; 1; 1; b; b + 2; a + b) and
H is isomorphic to K4 (a; 1; 1; a + b + 1; b; b + 1).
Case 6.3.4: When  +  + 16
+  +  and 
+

¿

+ 
+ 
, we have

+  +  =
+

(14)

by  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
, we have

 = 
+ 
: (15)

Then, from 
+

¿

+ 
+ 
(
¿
+ 
), we have


¿: (16)

After simpli=cation, we have

Q(G): − r  − r  − r  − r +1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 + r ++1 ;













Q(H ): − r  − r
− r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  + +1 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :

Since the h.r.p. in Q(G) is ++1 (since min{;

; ; } =
and 6) and the h.r.p. in
Q(H ) is

+
+
or 
+
+1, we have ++1 =

+
+
or ++1 = 
+
+1.
If  +  + 1=

+ 
+ 
, then, by  = 
+ 
(from (15)), we have

=  + 1:


Consider −r  +1 in Q(H ). It is due to 
¿ (from (16)) that 
+ 1 =  or 
+ 1 = . If

+1=, then

=
++1 since
+ + =

+
(from (14)). This is a contradiction
since

= + 1. If 
+ 1 =, then

=
+ 2 since

=  + 1. From 
¿, we have

¿ + 2. So we have a contradiction since no term in Q(G) is equal to −r

(noting

=  + 1 and 6) and nothing in Q(H ) can cancel −r

(by noting

= 
+ 2).
 Y.-l. Peng, R.-Y. Liu / Discrete Mathematics 258 (2002) 161 – 177 177

If  +  + 1 =
+ 
+ 1, then, by  +
+  +  = 
+

+ 
+ 
and
= 
(from
(4)), we have  =

. Since
+  +  = 
+

(from (14)), we have 
=
+  which
implies

¡
: (17)




After canceling −r  with −r
, canceling r ++1 with r  + +1 , we have

Q(G): − r  − r  − r +1 + r
+2 + r +
+ r ++1 ;










Q(H ): − r  − r  +1 − r
+1 + r
+2 + r  + +1 + r
+ + :


Consider −r  +1 in Q(H ). It is due to 
¿ (from (16)) and ¡
(from (17)) that






−r  +1 must be canceled by r
+2 or r
+ + . Thus, 
+1 =

+2 or 
+1 =

+
+
.
If 
+ 1=

+ 2, then we have a contradiction since no pair of terms in Q(G) are



equal to −r  and −r
+1 (by noting ¡
). If 
+ 1 =

+ 
+ 
, then 
=

+  − 1
since  =  +  (from (15)). Since

¿
+ 1 (from (10)) and 
¿2, we have

¿3.

Then 
=

+  − 1¿ + 2. This is a contradiction since no term in Q(G) is equal



to −r  (noting ¡
) and nothing in Q(H ) can cancel −r  (by noting 
+ 1 =

+




 +  ¿
+ 4).
So far, we have solved the equation P(G) =P(H ) and got the solution as follows:

k4 (a; 1; 1; a + b + 1; b; b + 1) ∼ K4 (a; 1; 1; b; b + 2; a + b);

k4 (a + 1; 1; 1; a + 3; 2; a) ∼ K4 (a + 2; 1; 1; a; 2; a + 2):

The proof is completed.

Acknowledgements

We thank the referees for suggestions which resulted in improvements to this paper.

References

[1] C.Y. Chao, L.C. Zhao, Chromatic polynomials of a family of graphs, Ars Combin. 15 (1983)
111–129.
[2] Z.-Y. Guo, E.G. Whitehead Jr., Chromaticity of a family of K4 -homeomorphs, Discrete Math. 172 (1997)
53 – 58.
[3] K.M. Koh, K.L. Teo, The search for chromatically unique graphs, Graphs Combin. 6 (1990)
259 –285.
[4] W.M. Li, Almost every K4 -homeomorph is chromatically unique, Ars Combin. 23 (1987) 13 – 36.
[5] E.G. Whitehead Jr., L.C. Zhao, Chromatic uniqueness and equivalence of K4 -homeomorphs, J. Graph
Theory 8 (1984) 355–364.
[6] S. Xu, Chromaticity of a family of K4 -homeomorphs, Discrete Math. 117 (1993) 293 –297.